Flat Chat Strata Forum Common Property Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #8206
    justsaying
    Flatchatter

      Hi Everyone,

       This is my dilemma. After battling for three years to get the Executive Committee to repair the water ingress into my unit and damp courtyard. I engaged a solicitor and following OFT mediation a contract was awarded to a well know builder. The issue is the courtyard that while it is common property; it is for my exclusive use and is only accessible from my unit. The waterproofing consultant recommended that the top section of the courtyard be tiled, leaving the lower section with the textured paving and brick pavers. At the time I expressed the opinion that it would look odd with three different finishes in a very small area.  During the rectification works, part of which included replacing a drain that runs the length of the courtyard, the contractor without any notice to me or the Principal of the company removed a large section of one side of the textured paved courtyard to install part of the drain. This was not part of the scope of works.  I arrived home to see the damage and I voiced my concerns to the consultant, the builder and the EC. I was assured “it will be fine, don’t worry! Famous last words.!!

      The result is a large grey patched, cemented patched area on one side of the textured paved courtyard.  The drain sits higher in the patched section and the remaining area is splattered with cement from the works that included replacement of the balcony above my unit, the builder decided to acid blast the paved area and its so rough I cannot walk outside without shoes.

      Both my neighbour and I sustained damage to our personal property. The builder has not reimbursed this.

       I advised the EC and the building manager that the repair was not of a high standard (as per the scope of works) and not in keeping with the rest of the building.  I suggested a delay in full payment of owner’s funds to ensure the builder repaired the damaged area.  I requested that the builder return and repair the damage. At a later inspection with all parties, the waterproofing consultant and the principal builder discussed the best way to make good that section of the courtyard was to tile the complete area. I suggested to tile within the brick pavers, a few metres however the consultant recommended covering over all of the existing area, some fifteen metres.

      Little did I know that both contractors had no intention of making good the area. Rather the builder sent an additional quote to the consultant. The EC state they never received that quote and further that as the repair was satisfactory according to the written report, they would not make good the damaged area. Recently mould has returned to the courtyard area, which was part of my original complaint.

      Numerous emails asking for the matter to be listed on the EC meeting, has not resulted in any positive result. One office bearer has replied to my emails stating that the work has been completed to the agreement at mediation. In hindsight, the solicitor has not specified the requirements for the repairs, it just agrees to repair the water ingress.

      My questions: – what are my options now? Can I apply to CTTT for an order? Are the EC obliged to ensure all repairs are of a high standard in accordance with the building?  Do I engage another solicitor ? What are my chances with CTTT?

      I feel as though a strata owner has none of the usual protection for repairs. Normally, one would refuse full payment until the work is completed to the owner’s satisfaction.

      There is an example of an EC not even interested in another owners concerns. They will not even inspect the work. My property has been devalued because of this repair.

      I look forward to your comments and recommendations

      Thank you

    Viewing 5 replies - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #15741

      Hi justsaying

       

      There are a few points to tackle here, but generally speaking there is no law which states that something must be finished to a ‘high standard’ as that isn’t really measurable and is highly subjective based on the amount paid, the individual’s expectations, promises made and so on. Therefore, the EC is not obliged to adhere to a non-existant law.

       

      That said, the builder, regardless of what was contained within the quote is responsible to ensure that the work is carried out to code and that usually entails Australian standards for workmanship and product specification. A solictor would make the assumption that work carried out is ‘to code’ and leave the rest to the parties to sort out rather than stipluating the quality of the work (unless that was the cause for using the solicitor in the firts place).

       

      If it is quoted that ‘X’ will be done with the drain, and ‘X’ is in fact to code without specifying what is to be done with the rest of the job (or vague words such as ‘repair/replace surrounding tiles’ rather than ‘make good existing surface with matching tiles’) then you may in fact need to obtain a new quote to get this job done.

       

      If, as you say, the drain is higher than the surface, then it is unlikely to be to code. If you used a licensed builder then their work will have a warranty. Get them back to fix the drain: maybe they will repair the tiles/pavers to your satisfaction while they are at it, but you will likely have to pay for materials as it doesn’t sound like that formed part of the initial quote.

      #15744
      justsaying
      Flatchatter
      Chat-starter

        Hi Mattb,

        Thanks for your advice I contacted the Aust Building Board and they have provided these details. I will report back to the forum with their advice I guess if I can provide additional evidence to the CTTT that the work is not satisfactory I have a better chance of success


         “State Building Control Administration. They handle all of the public technical enquiries regarding the building code.  In NSW the phone number is 02 9228 6529.”



        #15804
        Anonymous

          @justsaying said:

          Hi Mattb,

          Thanks for your advice I contacted the Aust Building Board and they have provided these details. I will report back to the forum with their advice I guess if I can provide additional evidence to the CTTT that the work is not satisfactory I have a better chance of success


           “State Building Control Administration. They handle all of the public technical enquiries regarding the building code.  In NSW the phone number is 02 9228 6529.”



          Hi,

          It’s great to see others willing to help. Some of the info is not quite right, let me make a few points clearer.

          1) all residential building works come under the Home Building Act NSW and as such section 18b Statutory Warranties which in short do require that all works are completed in a Tradesmanlike manner, that all works will be fit for purpose etc etc. so an industry expert that complies to the CTTT expert code of conduct can form an opinion if the works are completed in a workmanlike manner and/or is fit for purpose.

          2) You will not be able to lodge a building complaint with the OFT or request the Builder to return as you as the lot Owner and as such are not a party to the contract. As the area is common property the contracted parties are the Owners of SP (commonly referred to as the Owners Corporation) and the Builder, as such only the OC can lodge the OFT Building Complaint and/or ask the Builder to return.

          3) However in stating this you are not left without options. I would suggest that you put in writing your issues to the OC (your scheme seems to be of a size that would have a Strata Manager) both to the SM and all members of the EC, ask for a reply in writing. If the response doesn’t deal with the issues then go and see an experienced Strata Solicitor, it would seem to me on the information you have provided the past solicitor leaves something to be desired. (our email is below so if you need a starting point on finding a Strata Lawyer send us an email and we will send you a short list of Lawyers we have had experience with).

          Of course I can only form a view on what you wrote originally, however I am of a view that you have a number of legitimate issues which should be addressed. I think all Owners should expect that the EC acts fairly to all and should address legitimate concerns it seems to me that the EC would want to support you to ensure the strata schemes value is protected and not just the individual lots. The CTTT always want to see that the claimant has reasonably put their concerns clearly in writing and given the other side (in this case the OC) an opportunity to take reasonable action. So if you haven’t done so write to the OC and if they don’t reasonably respond then get advice from a Strata Lawyer.

          I Hope this helps.
          Chris Mo’ane AIAMA, MASBC-CPC
          GMD Integrated Consultancy Group
          Principal sponsor OCN, Corporate Members SCA and FPA

          #15806
          justsaying
          Flatchatter
          Chat-starter

            Thank you very much for your informative reply. I understand that the contract is not with me personally, however I understand that the EC should have the interests of all owners to ensure works to any common property is satisfactory and of an acceptable standard. I also understand that the EC has a duty of care to ensure the Act is upheld. Some lawyers can debate what is a workman like manner and acceptable, high standard, fit for purpose, and so on and owners pay for the privilege. The strata lawyer I engaged advised I had no case to apply for a CTTT order. 

             I have put the issues in writing to the EC, office bearers. SM and BM several times and given them a time frame. I asked for it to be listed on the EC agenda. This has not happened. I even offered to meet the EC halfway on the costs. Obviously I don’t want the OC to have additional costs of OFT/CTTT, so I requested the EC to act in a reasonable manner by insisting the builder return and make good the damage to the courtyard. This was denied by email from office bearers acting “on behalf of the EC”.  As I had to seek OFT mediation to get the work repaired, the OFT has suggested I gather all of the evidence and apply for an order under section 62, that the EC repair the damage that has occurred as a result of this work.

            I have contacted the Master Builders and I contacted the Building Codes Control admin. They advised that some of the wording in the scope of works has no basis within the code. I’ve now engaged an engineer to inspect the work and give a written report. I keep every single document fortunately. Thank you for your invitation I may call after all the reports are to hand.

            On a positive note the builder has reimbursed me for the damages to my personal property this week.

             I’m not a lawyer, and rely on expert legal advice, (Strata Lawyers) but I feel that the Strata Act leaves a lot to be desired for individual lot owners. I’m guessing that investors don’t have the same issues.  The fact that anyone can have a position on a board without any qualifications, even a basic Strata course, or experience with basic maintenance issues is baffling. However I do think that generally ECM have the best of intentions. I have read that there are to be changes to the Act to ensure all ECM agree to undertake a strata course, I hope thats correct.

            My levy is high and increasing every year, the  repair and maintenance work appears not to checked off by any of this EC because of the poor standard of repairs throughout the building. Strata managers can offer advice regarding the bylaws and decisions regarding changes to a lot BUT if the EC override it then we all suffer. In my case I’ve been  stressed, bullied, theatened, verbally abused for my emails etc. etc.

            Like my neighbours,who managed to sell in a better market,  I will be very happy to sell out of strata and buy a Torrens title property. Smile

            #15815
            Jimmy-T
            Keymaster

              Just one small point, I would be very surprised if the coming changes to the Strata Act insisted on EC members having some training in Strata law.  It would be a great thing – even if they made it mandatory for office-bearers would be a major step forward – but it probably isn’t going to happen for one very simple reason: 90 percent of strata buildings would have no one volunteering for their ECs.

              As one strata manager said to me recently, it’s hard enough to get good people on ECs as it is, making it harder for them to join would be a nightmare.

              Personally, in larger buildings I’d make it mandatory to have people with the required training OR have the office-bearers roles delegated to Strata Managers until such times as they have achieved the level of training required.  That way you either let the strata managers do their job (advised by the EC) or anyone who wants to take back control of their building can go out and learn how to do it properly.

              But, like I said, the chances of that happening are probably slim to negligible, if only because the Fair Trading Minister has said he wants to make Strata law and its application simpler, rather than more complicated.  Let’s hope I’m wrong.

              The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
            Viewing 5 replies - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
            • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

            Flat Chat Strata Forum Common Property Current Page